Package Details: b43-firmware

Git Clone URL: (read-only, click to copy)
Package Base: b43-firmware
Description: Firmware for Broadcom B43 wireless networking chips - latest release
Upstream URL:
Keywords: broadcom firmware wireless
Licenses: unknown
Conflicts: b43-firmware-classic
Submitter: Xavion
Maintainer: hayao
Last Packager: Xavion
Votes: 251
Popularity: 0.089526
First Submitted: 2008-11-22 01:47 (UTC)
Last Updated: 2015-12-31 21:30 (UTC)

Latest Comments

1 2 3 4 5 6 .. 14 Next › Last »

blmarket commented on 2024-03-23 16:24 (UTC)

Yes, can we just remove linux dependency here? I'd like to use linux-lts kernel but this one is blocking me to do so. (Technically I can just install both linux and linux-lts and only use linux-lts, but why...)

hayao commented on 2021-06-13 13:15 (UTC)

Now I am maintainer. What should I do? Should I remove the dependency?

JulianXhokaxhiu commented on 2021-06-13 12:55 (UTC)

I forgot I'm actually no more the maintainer, but somehow I still receive notification mails. You'd have to wait for the new one to take action, sorry :)

Scimmia commented on 2021-06-13 12:36 (UTC)

The dep should simply be removed.

JulianXhokaxhiu commented on 2021-06-13 08:51 (UTC)

I'd be totally open to that, if there's a way in the PKGBUILD to target all possible packages providing linux, in the depends section.

Is anyone aware how to achieve that?

df8oe commented on 2021-06-09 11:14 (UTC) (edited on 2021-06-09 11:16 (UTC) by df8oe)

If you run a linux-zen kernel without installed linux you cannot use package (but of course it works). I think dependency should be extended to linux-zen, too

Hi-Angel commented on 2016-11-19 18:42 (UTC)

vicp74 works here, Linux 4.8.7-1, WiFi card is BCM4312.

vicp74 commented on 2016-10-21 04:28 (UTC)

This firmware is not working for me with the kernel 4.8.2, the system doesn't boot and I think it's related to [1]. I tried the b43-firmware-classic but that one also fails. I'm doing some testing, is someone else experiencing this problem? [1]

Xavion commented on 2015-12-31 22:05 (UTC)

Okay, I've changed the license name and downgraded the warning to a post-installation message. I'm a bit surprised I didn't do the latter that way the first time to be honest. Anyway, this should bring about a peaceful end to our discussion. You might recall that the last one we had didn't conclude quite so smoothly. You ended up saying: "Don't bother emailing me again. You're now blocked." Am I still blocked, BTW? :-)

Scimmia commented on 2015-12-31 15:44 (UTC)

The license is what gets put on the end package. It is most definitely not GPL. Change it to custom, proprietary, unknown, whatever. Just not GPL. I read the discussion, you're the only one who mentioned a warning in the PKGBUILD. That's not where it belongs. Even if you want it there, making the user acknowledge it is the real problem.